rename_marker

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the marker keeps its position and color, and an empty name clears the marker rather than renaming it — a special-value rule not derivable from the schema or annotations. It stops short of describing error behavior for out-of-range indices.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the core action and index source front-loaded, and the clearing rule appended as the exception. No filler; only minor awkwardness in the 'get_markers numbers marker_index' construction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the index source, preserved attributes, and the empty-name edge case. Only failure modes (invalid index, marker not found) and return behavior are left implicit, which is acceptable at this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: marker_index is explained as the numbering used by get_markers, and name is explained to include the empty-string clear semantics. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare integer/string types, though accepted name constraints (length, characters) are unstated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename the marker') and scopes it further by naming the sibling that supplies the index ('get_markers numbers marker_index'). It also declares what is preserved (position and color), so an agent can distinguish it from add_marker, delete_marker, or rename_region. The phrasing is slightly convoluted but unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implicitly tells the agent where marker_index comes from (get_markers), which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to delete_marker or add_marker, and no mention of what happens for an invalid index.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.